With the recent release of Toy Story 4, I had no other choice then to purchase an overly priced cinema ticket to watch the film. I am only human after all. As I sat in the theatre watching the final instalment of some of my favourite childhood characters I started to think, rare I know, about why I was so ready to watch this fourth instalment despite sequels having such a bad reputation. This is made especially mind-boggling by the fact that, in his best-selling business book of 2014, the president of Pixar, Ed Catmull, was quoted saying that sequels represent “ a sort of creative bankruptcy” in reference to Pixar’s avoidance and dislike for cheap-spins off that have long since been a large money source for Disney’s Animation Studios Film. With his strong arguments in which he states that if Pixar were to begin to make sequels it would “wither and die”, how did films such as The Incredibles 2 and Finding Dory come to be created?
I think it is universally agreed that sequels suck. Just think about it for a second, The Fly II, Rocky V, Terminator Genesys, Cars 2, Iron Man 2, Batman and Robin, need I go on? Comment some of the worst film sequels in your opinion!
As a child of the 90’s, when I think of Pixar I think Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and of course Toy Story. One of the reasons that these films become so successful and prevalent to my childhood is the uniqueness of the stories, differing from the same basic layout of Disney animations. Pixar has long since been credited with the ability to create One of the major contributing factors to their Pixar’s success is their push of excellence and uniqueness, telling children stories with some very adult-like themes of love, loss and grief and in doing so successfully appeals to both.
The way they could achieve this was being able to tell two separate stories at once, constructing a classic straightforward children’s story inter-blended with a more complex moral and narrative. It is this storytelling architecture that made Pixar’s original release films so compelling to their audience. Up is a fantastic example of this story-telling structure, with its initial story line being that of an conventional boy’s adventure tale which becoming a emotional story of loss, grief and renewal. I still get tears in my eyes when watching the opening montage of Up alone, which it incredibly powerful storytelling all on its own.
It is arguable that the studio found their greatest success when telling compelling stories of parenthood, shown throw Finding Nemo and The Incredibles and more implied examples seen in Monsters inc and Up.
Now it is time to turn back to the original Pixar film. You can easily understand the then CEO of Disney, Michael Eisner, initial dismal of the movie pitch saying, “Who would want to see a movie about a little boy who plays with doll?”. What he failed to see that Pixar did not was the opportunity to develop a story with deep insights into parent-child relations and the fact that the movie is in actual fact about dolls who want to be played with by a little boy. This small alteration in perspective makes all the difference. The story changes when it focuses on characters who re worried about a future where they are not longer deemed necessary.
In the opening scene you can already see the general themes of the movie being subtly introduced.
It was believed that, after the announcements of sequels such as Finding Dory, that Pixar’s golden era of 15 years in terms of creative excellence, that began in 1995 with Toy Story, is coming to an end. It appears that after WALL-E and Up, they have been in some way surpassed by other animations studios; including Laika with Coraline or Walt Disney Animation Studios rebound with Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph and even Frozen. Pixar’s Finding Dory failed to even be considering for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars.
This decline in success and creative excellence is often attributed to the joining of Disney and Pixar, with the pressure to create content for their audience outweighing the quality of the content being created. The Disney merger didn’t have an immediate effect on Pixar’s distaste for sequels, with them rejecting a direct-to-video sequel of Toy Story and instead opting to spend time creating a sequel with one of their most memorable villains and a strong continuation of the franchise. Proving that sequels can be done right by Pixar. However, with installations of Cars 2 and 3, in an already underdeveloped world and storyline of the first Cars, that failed to equate to their usually intricate stories, it became clear the Disney-Pixar was not the same as the Pixar we know and love.
It is clear to see why, after the release of Toy Story 4, Pixar announce the movie as both the final instalment of the franchise and the final sequel that the animation company will ever produce. It is safe to say that, as a huge Pixar fan, I am ecstatic to see the animation giant returning to their roots and begin to create newer and more nuanced stories that inspire adults and children alike.
Do you agree that sequels are created because of the guaranteed audience ensures the movie to be a safe option or the lazy way out?
References Links: